In A Darwinian Left, Peter Singer argues that the political left has misunderstood Darwinian ideas and as a result been hostile to the application of Darwinian thinking to politics. Those on the political left who seek a more egalitarian society should instead embrace evolutionary ideas and learn how to use evolutionary thinking in order to build the kind of cooperative society sought.

Product Description

From Amazon

Philosophers don't have to be arcane and out of touch. Princeton's Peter Singer gives 21st-century liberals and radicals something to think about with the slim but powerful volume of Darwinism Today titled A Darwinian Left. Long noted for holding controversial bioethical beliefs related to animal rights, abortion, and euthanasia, Singer tends to quickly polarize his readers. This time, he chooses to antagonize those most sympathetic with his positions, arguing that the political left should re-evaluate its dependence on Marxism and its shunning of Darwinism. His writing is lucid and pulls no punches in examining the consequences of 20th-century answers to poverty; fans of the welfare state are in for some discomfort.

But Singer sees making a few liberals squirm as crucial to stealing Darwinism from the right and combining the noble desire to help the helpless with a realistic view of human nature and evolution. He builds a compelling line of thought, peppered with examples, that shows how our competitive "survival of the fittest" conception of evolution falls far short of modern scientific thinking. Instead, Singer suggests we incorporate a Darwinian ethic of cooperation into our political thought and reflect carefully on the consequences of our remedies for the evils of the world. --Rob Lightner

About the Author

Peter Singer, formerly at Monash University, is Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Centre for Human Values, Princeton University.
--This text refers to an alternate
Hardcover
edition.

Most helpful customer reviews

This book is, as another reviewer put it, definitely worth reading. Singer brings to light several important issues that the left certainly needs to address. However, it is not without its flaws.For one, Singer misrepresents some of Marx's ideas. Marx clearly *did* have a concept of a fixed human nature, albeit that interacted dialectically with its social surroundings. For more on this view, see Marx's Concept of Man by Erich Fromm and The Dialectical Biologist by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin.Also, Singer relies to heavily on the discredited reductionist approach to biology championed by Dawkins and company.There is no "nature vs. nurture". There is no linear relationship between genotype and phenotype. Almost everything results from nature *and* nurture. Take, for example, even a simple thing like height: we all have different genetic potentials for growth, but only with proper nutrition can those potentials by fully realized. And today, there are even limb lengthening operations, allowing for the phenotype to be further altered -- without genetic manipulation. One can only imagine the multitude of ways in which environment must, then, impact social and psychological development.Similarly, Singer uncritically accepts Derek Freeman's attack on Margaret Mead. But, as Martin Orans argues convincingly in his Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and the Samoans, there's ample reason to doubt Freeman's thesis.But read it, and make up your own mind.

It was thought not too many years ago that the architects (so to speak) of the modern world were Marx, Darwin, Einstein and Freud. Now that the postmodern era is upon us, a reevaluation has been made and Marxist ideas have been largely discredited. Einstein has suffered a correction (from quantum mechanics), Freud has been reclassified as literature, and it is only Darwin's reputation that has survived unsullied.Furthermore during this period the right has taken Darwin as its own, believing that the competitive biological nature of human beings as revealed by evolutionary biology is what leads to the inequalities that exist in human societies while justifying the war of one against all, etc.But what Peter Singer is crowing about (and is the occasion for this lengthy essay/short book) is that the "red in tooth and claw" (Tennyson) interpretation of biological evolution that prevailed throughout the modern era is now coming under fire. No longer can biological evolution be seen as simply the strong taking advantage of the weak (a notion understandably obnoxious to the left). The larger truth now emerging from biology is that cooperation plays an important role in being fit and has, especially for humans, great adaptive value. It is becoming clear that Richard Dawkins's idea of the "selfish gene" is only part of the understanding, and that natural selection operates on groups through the individual, leading to an understanding that one (more cooperative) tribe may be selected over another, and that it is through cooperation within the tribe that Darwinian fittest may be most strongly expressed.Now this is an idea that the left can appreciate. Consequently Singer's enthusiasm. Marx is dead, long live Darwin!Read more ›

Much of the Left has treated genetics as a right-wing fabrication by those seeking to protect the status quo or, worse yet, attempting to resucitate the notion of a master race. Of course, this statement should be qualified. The Left has no problems with genetics as long as it is applied exclusively to "physical" characteristics. In this last sentence we can begin to already see the cracks: how can there be such a neat division between the physical and the behavioral?In this IMPORTANT essay, Professor Peter Singer calls on the Left to reconsider its position. Certainly there have been those on the Right who have misinterpreted genetics in order to defend the status quo, defend racism, imperialism, etc; however, it is not reasonable to condemn genetics and the scientists working in that area just because the Right has attempted to appropriate the field for its ideological purposes. That is tantamount, in my opinion, to condemning physics just because some have applied it to militaristic purposes.It is sad to report, but there are a lot of people on the Left- and I am myself a Leftist- who thrive on tired bromides and have little tolerance for complexity. Of course the system, culture, and class that we are born into are important. Very few would deny that. However, these cultural phenomena arise from, conflate with, express and sometimes frustrate certain genetic constants of human nature.Denial of this has already had dire consequences for the Left.Where has there been a Party or government -Left or Right- that has not been rife with power-seeking, self-interested people?If aggression were supposed to disappear with socialism, then whydid the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia?Read more ›